So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

Clent:So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

See the sequestration was perfectly fine. The government can run forever on nothing, you evil Dems just want to punish the successful, that is the only reason for taxes, as we can see they don't actually pay for vital services.

19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Clent:So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

but, not so fast:

James!:No, wait. It looks like it's true. Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.

WhiskeyBender:A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.

Reason's figure is only off by 5 orders of magnitude. I must admit, they're getting more honest.

The funny thing is, one could argue the following numbers are small. But that raises the point, "why do Republicans always have to lie?"

From the Report:SBA completed an early retirement offering, through which nearly 200 employees retired. SBA also achieved $9.5 million in savings by implementing a partial hiringfreeze

DOE officials also estimated thatcontractors reduced or left vacant approximately 1,000 positions in fiscalyear 2013, including laying off or voluntarily separating more than 300 oftheir employees. These figures do not include subcontractor employees,university researchers, and others who do not have a direct contractualrelationship with DOE.

however, as of March 2013, the hiring freeze nolonger allowed for the automatic backfilling of such personnel. DOJreported that it lost over 3,500 employees between January 2011, whenthe hiring freeze was implemented, and September 21, 2013, the last payperiod in fiscal year 2013. This loss equals almost 3 percent of DOJ'sworkforce, including almost 400 agents, almost 200 intelligence analysts,and over 400 attorneys. DOJ stated that the largest losses-of over 2,000employees-were among support staff, such as paralegals, chemists,accountants, and contract specialists.

Implemented a hiring freeze, with only minimal hiring in critical frontlineareas. SSA reported that this action resulted in the loss of about11,000 employees since 2011, including about 1,875 federal and stateemployees from March 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.83

DamnYankees:Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

Clent:So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

So I came into here wondering "Hmmm I wonder, how is this 100% complete bullshiat" - Thanks for pointing it out in the very Weeners.

To me it's amazing how these people still keep going back to the same BS even if it's proven wrong again and again.

Mrtraveler01:Dr Dreidel: And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?

Yep, the GOP mindset seems to be:

"Unemployment is bad...unless those people who are getting laid off are government workers, then in that case, fark them!"

They seem to believe that the money that government workers make is somehow either a. not real (that is, it can't be used to pay for things like 'real' money that's made by a worker in the private sector) or b. isn't deserved by that worker, since they have the audacity to work for the government, of all things (conveniently forgetting that they themselves also work for the government...which makes them, government workers).

qorkfiend:DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?

Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?

DrPainMD:Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

Hey subby, I knew that guy. And basically, he was a slacker. On fark all day long. Never put cover sheets on his TPS reports. Drank the last cup of coffee and didn't make more. Used speakerphone in a cubicle field. Flossed his teeth at his desk.